The first thing I need to address is:
[...] do you realize that most people probably have no idea what you're talking about? I have no idea what CIS means even after reading this blog post. I have never seen that term. Your movement is not mainstream yet so you can't expect people to know what you're talking about or what offends you unless you educate them.
If you don't know what "cis" means, it is YOUR job to educate yourself. Ignorance is not an excuse. Did you even try to Google the term? "Cis" by itself brings up some random computer stuff, that obviously didn't fit the context in which I used the word; "cis feminism" (which is how I used the term in my post) brings up this:
Without even clicking on the Wikipedia link, you can get the meaning. In the simplest, most basic, most binary terms, cis is the "opposite" of trans: people whose gender matches their genitalia at birth.
The definition I have linked before on this blog is the second link, to RaisingMyBoychick's glossary. There are a lot of good terms on that glossary; bookmarking it would be a good idea.
So, as a normal person who comes across a term online, finding the definition of the term is not that hard -- that's how I figured it out, after I saw it on Twitter and in blogs.
As a writer who has written a trans character in her novel, my blog is not the first time you should have seen the term "cis." If you were going to write a transgender character, shouldn't you have done research into what that would entail? Shouldn't one of your beta readers or crit partners have been a trans woman?
She could have clued you in to the fact that a cis person using the word "tranny" is the same as a white person using the word "nigger."
You're right that people don't talk about this -- at least not properly or accurately -- in "the mainstream media." When you published that book, you became part of "the mainstream media," and it became your responsibility to learn how to talk about it the right way (not the "politically correct" way. "Politically correct" is what you do to appease irrational people that you totally disagree with but you don't want to hear their crybabying anymore).
The book is told from Sydney's point of view. She is the narrator, except for the few times when Max (or Mitzi or Liz; I think they each got one or two scenes) tells the story, but none of these other POVs addresses Sydney's transmisogyny. The other problematic aspects of her personality are called out, but this one isn't.
You even chose to silence The Raven the one time she could have spoken up for herself; instead, the scene turned into making fun of the weird "tranny" who just started crying when Sydney wanted to ask her about her penis.
And you don't think her getting fired from her cushy, well-paying job is a consequence?No.
Sydney didn't get fired because she misgendered The Raven. She got fired because the editors wanted her out, as Sydney and Myrna discussed.
My first thought when I read the scene where Sydney tells Myrna she was fired was, "And no one read the article before it went to print??" Doesn't Sydney have an editor, to whom she turns in her work? Doesn't the editor read it, and suggest necessary changes?
Even if Sydney were such a high-level writer she didn't need an editor anymore, isn't there a copy-editor who proofreads all the magazine's copy for grammar, spelling, and typos?
Isn't there a headline writer who reads the article and gives it a headline?
All these people read the piece, and nobody pointed out Sydney's blatant and spiteful misgendering?
And that's just for a regular, run-of-the-mill party-covering blurb. This was Cachet's STORY OF THE YEAR! Gareth AND Conrad show up to oversee Sydney's bleepin' hair extensions, but niether one of them bother to read the actual article?? Especially knowing how eccentric and sensitive The Raven was??
As the story is written, Sydney was fired because the bosses wanted her gone, and this faux pas was a good excuse. Sydney learned nothing from the experience (she still called them "the trannies" who got her fired and referred to them as "cross-dressers"), and the reader can't see the firing as a consequence of the transmisogyny since obviously the rest of the magazine was in on it, since not one of the gatekeepers said a peep about it.
If Sydney had posted a status update on her Facebook page about "just got back home after interviewing the crazy tranny," or if she had a blog on Cachet's site and she had blogged about the interview and misgendered The Raven there -- without the gatekeepers to stop her -- then the firing could be seen as a consequence to her actions. As written, it was just another political move -- easy come, easy go. She was hired for "PC" reasons, she was fired using the excuse of "PC" reasons.
If you had written something interesting, something that could enlighten the rest of us, I would have happily posted it on my blog. But there's nothing here worth blogging about. You're not trying to start a dialogue. You're not looking to educate. You're just looking to rage.
Yes, I was raging. I spewed bile onto my notebook. When I realized yesterday was International Women's Day, I thought the post was fitting, and typed it up without letting the thoughts simmer so I could elaborate on the issues.
You're right, yesterday's post was hastily (and angrily) written, and I could have done better. This is another reason I made this response it's own blog post, instead of just leaving a comment.
I'm not looking to educate. I'm looking to expose. It's not my job to educate you (and it sure as sh!te isn't Voz's job to educate you) -- it's YOUR job to educate yourself.
Since you're dark-skinned and I'm white-skinned, is it your job to educate me about the discrimination women of color face? Is it your job to kindly and politely (yes, you must say, "Yes'um," just like Mammie did!) explain to me about racism, and why I shouldn't call you "colored"?
So why are you telling Voz (and me) that's what she needs to do?
Just the fact that you have been called out on your use of the t-word (and your ignorance of trans* issues) should be enough to make you want to "share" this on your blog. I'm not saying you have to link to me, or anything -- I am by no means an expert on this topic (if you want to link to anyone, or ask anyone to guest post, I'd have to refer you to Voz). Finding out the hurt your words caused, the hate your words conveyed, the ignorance your words validated should have moved you to explore the topic and write about it on your blog. "Share" the information you just received.
But, if your comment was any indication, you are not interested in learning. You are interested in justifying yourself, and continuing to revel in your cis privilege.